|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 27 2015 09:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:All it says is that every culture has a social contract, it's own morality. This isn't exactly relevant but thats not really what it says. social contract does not equal morality. all the social contract says is that theirs an implicit agreement between people and the state. Morality is an entirely different issue altogether. also I think you making utilitarianism sound more arbitrary than it is. (although to be fair those are legitimate arguments against utilitarianism the question then becomes how valid are they as arguments and whether they can be responded to.) But I'm not informed enough about utilitarianism to go much deeper than that. also as its defined legally its not a violation of your legal rights so the issue to me seems to be wholly on a moral level which there really probably isn't a definitive objective answer to. Well, nothing is a violation of your legal rights if the supreme court says it's not. If for some reason they had a drastic change of heart and decided that the constitution didn't protect black people's right to vote, disenfranchising them wouldn't be a violation of their legal rights. If you accept that legal rights are a thing people have, they must be based on something more fundamental, or whatever body decides what your legal rights are can basically decide on a whim to take some away. Meaning natural rights are fundamental to a rights-based society.
The idea of a rights-based society already posits that rights are in some way reflective of the society they underpin.
|
On March 27 2015 09:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:All it says is that every culture has a social contract, it's own morality. This isn't exactly relevant but thats not really what it says. social contract does not equal morality. all the social contract says is that theirs an implicit agreement between people and the state. Morality is an entirely different issue altogether. also I think you making utilitarianism sound more arbitrary than it is. (although to be fair those are legitimate arguments against utilitarianism the question then becomes how valid are they as arguments and whether they can be responded to.) But I'm not informed enough about utilitarianism to go much deeper than that. also as its defined legally its not a violation of your legal rights so the issue to me seems to be wholly on a moral level which there really probably isn't a definitive objective answer to. Well, nothing is a violation of your legal rights if the supreme court says it's not. If for some reason they had a drastic change of heart and decided that the constitution didn't protect black people's right to vote, disenfranchising them wouldn't be a violation of their legal rights. If you accept that legal rights are a thing people have, they must be based on something more fundamental, or whatever body decides what your legal rights are can basically decide on a whim to take some away. Meaning natural rights are fundamental to a rights-based society.
your second point makes sense but then of course everyone has different opinions of just how far their rights extend and what they cover. so yeah they kinda conflate and there is some overlap. so of course the issue now becomes what are your natural rights and to what extent do they apply.
|
On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does.
Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony).
I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!".
but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending (if you think that healthcare spending by gov't is a 'retarded' thing.), that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now.
Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom.
So in reality, single payer system = more freedom.
tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again?
|
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up.
|
accidentally hit quote sry
|
On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options.
News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?"
Cruz: "It went fine"
News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?"
Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again?
Is this really a serious question, or are you that blissfully unaware of what partisan politics can do to good ideas?
|
On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options.
News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?"
Cruz: "It went fine"
News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?"
Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again?
The military, NSA, all that other stuff you listed are government organizations. They really are taxes. How can you pay taxes to private companies though? That doesn't make any sense.
|
On March 27 2015 09:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:
[quote]
...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again? Is this really a serious question, or are you that blissfully unaware of what partisan politics can do to good ideas?
it's obviously a joke question, and it's more of an issue of big money lobbying than partisan politics.
2016 bernie sanders plz save us.
On March 27 2015 09:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:
[quote]
...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again? The military, NSA, all that other stuff you listed are government organizations. They really are taxes. How can you pay taxes to private companies though? That doesn't make any sense.
that's why i'm in favor of gov't run singlepayer system.
and also, pay taxes to private company works remarkably well in the form of tax cuts.
|
I agree that single payer would be clearly taxes, rather than the murkier way the ACA handled it.
|
On March 27 2015 09:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:
[quote]
...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live... True Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again? The military, NSA, all that other stuff you listed are government organizations. They really are taxes. How can you pay taxes to private companies though? That doesn't make any sense.
possiblybecause those companies are providing a public service? I mean when you pay taxes and they get spent on roads and the like or what about utility companies and the like? (I suppose both of those could be technically government run, not too sure of how it works. Then again everyone was so against the idea of getting your health coverage from the government.)
(I'm not sure how well this argument holds up but It makes a bit of sense to me.)
|
Big money lobbying and partisan politics go hand in hand, dawg. Which one's the dog and which one's the tail remains to be seen.
|
On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up.
So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth?
That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane?
|
On March 27 2015 09:52 farvacola wrote:
Big money lobbying and partisan politics go hand in hand, dawg. Which one's the dog and which one's the tail remains to be seen.
plenty of countries have partisan politics, and still make good decisions, difference is they also tend to lack big money involvement. At least from my understanding (which could just be fundamentally flawed in how I view some other countries)
|
I'd like a way for private insurance companies to use Medicare's claims processing system, since Medicare's is super-efficient iirc.
|
|
|
On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane?
while Rawl's veil of ignorance states that from the original position everyone would want to be as equal as possible so there is that argument. personally I see it more of a balancing act between total utility and equality that doesn't relaly have a definitive position
It's not purely about wealth but you do have to admit that without a decent amount of money it's hard to really do anything so 5,000 dollars so to say probably means more to a family on minimum wage then a millionare.
|
On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane?
Good god, are you really going to try and nitpick that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA since you're deliberately not extrapolating:
16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you?
|
cuz polished turd is better than the shithole we had before.
ACA sucks, I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. But, the situation before was just getting worse by the second. It'll be a while before we can see long term impact of ACA...
On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to try and nitpick that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA since you're deliberately not extrapolating: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you?
problem was obama, and his administration said "oh nothing will change if you already have health insurance" which obviously wasn't true. Not to mention the implementation is complete and utter shit.
that being said, the idea of the ACA was a step in the right direction (more people joining the coverage pool, and trying to force lower costs through bottom up mechanics), the actual implementation is sort of in the wrong direction (it actually entrenches private insurance companies even further into our healthcare system, making it fundamentally harder for the gov't to move to an actual single payer plan).
|
On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you?
Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee.
|
On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee.
while like I said earlier everyone does use the health care system in some capacity (unless I guess they live in the woods or something). Obviously the systems not perfect. I mean you can't really not use the system, so at some level if you weren't paying you'd be taking advantages of a system without contributing to it. If you don't own a car your taxes are still going into maintaining the roads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
